Osprey places Marines at risk

[thedrifter]

Osprey places Marines at risk
By: J. STRYKER MEYER - Staff Writer

Across the desert in Iraq and the hills of Afghanistan the terrorists of al-Qaida and the Taliban must have applauded the Pentagon's recent green light to start building 400 of the controversial tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey hybrids at a cost of more than $100 million per aircraft.

This aircraft, which the corrupted military-industrial-congressional complex has heralded for decades, has no defensive weaponry whatsoever, unlike the old Vietnam-era helicopters that had varying forms of defensive weapons on them.

James Darcy, the Pentagon's MV-22 spokesman, said that all Ospreys deployed to future overseas assignments beginning in 2007 will have a single M-240, 7.62-millimeter machine gun bolted onto the aircraft's rear ramp as a defensive weapon. In addition, he said Marine Corps and aircraft research and development staff are exploring feasible "all-quadrant" weapons systems for the Osprey.

Well, that's a little bit of good news for the good guys.

However, with a single machine gun mounted on the rear of the Osprey, its field of fire will be severely limited.

Giving Marine planners the benefit of the doubt, at best, from the ramp the gunner will be able to fire in an 180-degree radius, with the main field of fire to the rear of the aircraft. Due to the unique design of the nacelles on each wing of the aircraft, gunners will not be able to fire forward or to the front sides of the MV-22, which leaves it vulnerable to enemy gunners.

A few weeks ago the Pentagon gave Boeing Co. and Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter division the green light to start building the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which takes off and lands vertically in a helicopter mode, with its propellers above the aircraft. Once the aircraft gets airborne, the two engines rotate forward, turning 90 degrees and locking into a conventional airplane mode, where it can reach higher speeds than any conventional helicopter.

Marine leaders, desperate for a transport helicopter to replace its existing Vietnam-era fleet, have hailed the hybrid as an aircraft that will revolutionize the way Marines fight wars ---- allowing them to "jump" or "leap" deeper and faster into enemy territory.

Camp Pendleton's highest-ranking general, I Marine Expeditionary Force commander Lt. Gen. John Sattler, said, "I'd love to have it ... I'd like to have it right now."

I've been a major critic of the Osprey since the 1999 Marana crash that killed 18 Marines. Darcy said that since that crash, engineers and technicians have ironed out most bugs in the hybrid aircraft.

However, as an old infantryman, I still get hinky riding into a landing zone where I can't see outside the aircraft and I can't return fire at hostile forces trying to kill me ---- which is how I felt the last time I rode in the Osprey in 2000. Several Marine ground-pounders echoed my skepticism.

In Vietnam, U.S. military personnel inside of choppers could fire at enemy troops while flying into a landing zone or while leaving a hostile area, something U.S. combat troops cannot do in the Osprey.

Contact staff writer J. Stryker Meyer (760) 901-4089 or jmeyer@nctimes.com.

Ellie

[ggyoung]

They say " have ironed out most of the bugs". Still sounds bad to me.

[Nagalfar]

Is the speed and range worth what they are giving up to use it? I really dont know.. I guess time will tell, I dont think trading our brothers to find out is worth it, anyone know much about this? I understand the tactical advantages of having something like this, but what amounts to almost no defense at all added to a hot LZ could really be a disaster waiting to happen.

[hrscowboy]

This bird is nothing but a disaster happening gentlemen. Theres not a dang thing wrong with the CH-53 or the 46 what so ever. Yes we lost a few of Choppers due to Parts failure and stress on frames but dang look at what they have done and where they have been. If our United States can take a B-52 and keep them flying for all these years and not planning to take it out of service until 2027 thats almost 70 years service and have not spent the half the money that it would have cost to build a new bomber. We should do the same to the CH-53 and the 46s and tell Boeing to stuff that V-22 were the sun dont shine.

[Joseph P Carey]

Well, all things progress at their own speed. As it happens, I was on NATO Operation Steele Pike I in 1964, in Spain, and I witnessed two of our old faithful Helicopters collide in mid-air. With the Magnesium based metals in the old Helicopters, the two helos were burned to a crisp before they hit the ground. I think 17 Marines died in the crash. We still used the craft in Vietnam less than a year later, and they still crashed and burned with all aboard on occasions.

My point being, it was better than walking to the battlefield, and most of those old helicopters still flew many more missions without crashing, and without burning. The Osprey may not be the ultimate answer, but like most Marine Corps inventions, it may very well be the future, and with some modifications may very well be quite safe in the end. No one said that the Marines was a safe occupation, or that war was not harmless to one's health. The Osprey is still miles ahead of what we have now, if used in conjunction with Harrier Jets the potential could be very promising to our fighting forces to come.

[yellowwing]

How complicated would it be to put an actuating 20mm gun under the nose? $100 million, sheesh go ahead and add another million or two.

[ggyoung]

Bring back the old uh34. It could take more battle damnage and keep on flying.

[Q2 DET Y4]

This bird is nothing but a disaster happening gentlemen. Theres not a dang thing wrong with the CH-53 or the 46 what so ever.

Except for the fact that they both are old, tired and have extremely limited performance capabilities compared to what they used to be able to accomplish. CH-53s require over six times the number of maintenance hours per flight hour as the Osprey. The CH-53 fleet represents the single largest capital expenditure in the Corps' aviation budget. Perhaps the entire budget. CH-46s require nearly four times the number of maintenance hours per flight hour as the Osprey. The CH-46 can currently only carry about a third of the payload as it could when it came off the line. Parts procurement is difficult and expensive. A new set of composite rotor blades for a single Sea Knight costs the Corps nearly $500K. CH-53s are being retired due to airframe fatigue and replacements are being culled from AMARC. Said replacements have to be extensively modified and upgraded before being sent to the FMF. Due to the increase in operations in OIF and OEF these aircraft are all wearing out much sooner than originally forecast.


Yes we lost a few of Choppers due to Parts failure and stress on frames but dang look at what they have done and where they have been.

More than a few CH-46s were lost as a result of station 410 failures alone. The Sea Knight has faithfully served the Corps, a testament to the efforts of its aircrews and mechanics but it's long past time to retire those birds.


If our United States can take a B-52 and keep them flying for all these years and not planning to take it out of service until 2027 thats almost 70 years service and have not spent the half the money that it would have cost to build a new bomber. We should do the same to the CH-53 and the 46s and tell Boeing to stuff that V-22 were the sun dont shine.

Apples and oranges. B-52s don't operate in the same environment nor are the airframes of a bomber subjected to the same types of stress as the airframe of a helicopter. Plus the Marine Corps has always been on the short end of the appropriations stick. A lot of money has been pumped into the B-52 to keep it in service. The B-52 fleet is quite a bit smaller than it was in the beginning too. Out of a total of 744 aircraft less than a 100 are still in service.

Rather than rely on the words of a reporter, talk to the Marines at New River who fly and maintain the Osprey. You'll come away with a much different and more accurate perspective on both it and the aircraft it will replace.

[greensideout]

I am still trying to figure out why anyone would think that the Ospray is designed to be a "Hot LZ" type aircraft? Oh sure, I have seen some drawings in a magazine that depicted a hot landing but thought that it looked more like a joke then what the mission of the craft was intended to be.

Think about it---moving a BLT from ship to AO faster and with fewer craft. Rapid deployment---get it?

I think it will be a good addition to the fleet but of course only time in the fleet will tell.